Will Rep. Ron Paul Provide Redress?
This nation is rushing headlong into debt, dependency and decay. Unconstitutional acts have become the precedent for more of the same, which become precedent for still further acts of despotism.
Can the People elect their way out of such tyranny?
Unfortunately, no! It is not possible, as Ron Paul’s candidacy has proven. Every time he exposed the constitutional truth regarding an issue (e.g., the undeclared Iraq war and the Federal Reserve System) he lost a block of voters who possess a vested interest in the status quo.
What then is the solution?
A forceful defense of the Constitution! This nation’s major problems would all but disappear if 1/10 of one percent of the People (i.e., 300,000) decided to collectively force the leaders of the political branches of the federal Government to honor their oaths of office and abide by the federal Constitution.
Can the People, without violence, force the Government to follow the Constitution?
Yes, by claiming and exercising their individual, First Amendment Right of Redress: “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the Right of the People …to Petition the Government for Redress of Grievances.”
What was the Framers’ intent behind this clause?
The historical record is clear and totally uncontroverted: The purpose of the Petition clause was to be the "accountability" clause – the clause by which the People could peaceably hold the Government accountable to the rest of the Constitution. It was meant to be the “capstone Right,” that capped all the others, a critical element in the overall balance of power between the People and the government.
How was it intended to work?
If the People Petition the Government for Redress of violations of the Constitution and the Government refuses to respond, the People have the Right to withdraw their allegiance and support from the Government, without retaliation.
Why must 300,000 people act “collectively” if our Rights are individual, unalienable Rights endowed by one’s Creator?
Because individuals (and small groups) cannot prevail against either the brute power of the state or the tyranny of the majority. Governments simply will not relinquish power unless forced to do so. Majorities likewise are loath to surrender the many forms of beneficence made available by the state. Liberty has never been given; it has always been taken.
Are there 300,000 people in America who understand the Constitution is a set of principles to govern the Government, and that the Constitution is all that stands between them and total tyranny and despotism?
Yes. Despite his low probability of achieving the presidential nomination, 1.3 million people voted for Ron Paul and his call for constitutional Freedom. They not only went to the polls, they aggressively entered the mainstream political fray, generating significant displays of public support for Paul and his potent message, confronting the political opposition by creating high-profile signage (think "blimp"), high-visibility rallies and staking out a significant on-line presence across the Internet. His supporters rallied, marched and attended thousands of local grassroots meetings. Many even maxed out their credit cards to further his campaign.
What then IS the problem?
The answer: treasured shibboleths and hero worship. Above all else, People value and trust the familiar formula of all Democracies – political cycles, public elections and party privileged candidates to select from, even though all objective experience hath shown the formula, though indispensable, is nothing more than a myth in terms of its practical ability to preserve and protect our constitutional Republic and our individual Rights, Freedoms and Liberties.
Can the People's treasured shibboleths be exposed for what they are and driven into disrepute and discredited as the principle means to hold government accountable to the Constitution and its essential principles, giving rise to a true surge of Freedom in America?
Yes, but like anything else worth having, it won’t come easily. A paradigm shift in the People’s behavior will be required. New exercises of law and tools of protest will be required. A strategic plan is necessary. Organizational development is essential.
In the absence of any other, WTP again offers its Plan to Restore Constitutional Order. Admittedly, much, much more needs to be done to develop the organization needed to achieve the Redress the People are entitled to and to institutionalize vigilance.
The rest of this article relates to the Plan and its progress. We will soon address organizational development.
The details and logic behind the Plan are reviewable at www.GiveMeLiberty.org/revolution.
As of today, there are more than 80,000 signatures on the seven (7) Petitions for Redress of Grievances regarding substantial violations of the Constitution:
1. The Iraq invasion in violation of the war powers clauses.
2. The Federal Reserve System’s violation of the money clauses.
3. The USA Patriot Act’s violation of the privacy clauses.
4. The direct, un-apportioned taxes on labor in violation of the tax clauses.
5. The federal gun control laws in violation of the Second Amendment.
6. The failure to enforce immigration laws in violation of the “faithfully execute clause.”
7. The construction, by stealth, of a "North American Union" without constitutional authority.
These but scratch the surface. There are other current and popular abuses of government power that could and should become the subject of additional Petitions for Redress.
The number of Congressmen who have not yet been served with the seven Petitions for Redress has been reduced to 65. As of this week, 470 have been successfully served.
Click here for a list of the 65 members of Congress who still need to be served.
Click here to volunteer to serve these Congressmen.
Early this year, our landmark Right-to-Petition case, We the People v United States reached the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”). It was an action for declaratory relief in which we sought a declaration of the Rights of the People and the obligations of the Government under the accountability clause of the First Amendment. No court has ever declared the meaning of the clause. SCOTUS decided not to hear the case. RIGHT-Click to download WTP's Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court and its Appendix.
If we fail to receive responsive responses to the Petitions for Redress of constitutional violations that are now being served on every member of Congress, we plan to file a similar lawsuit in each of the eleven federal judicial circuits outside the DC Circuit. It will be much more difficult for SCOTUS to duck the issue by deciding not to hear the case if two circuit courts disagree on the meaning of the last ten words of the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Quite unexpectedly, one such lawsuit was filed on Tuesday of last week in Missouri by Ray and Elaine Herron, the two people who served the Petitions for Redress on their representative in the U.S. House of Representatives (Rep. Ike Skelton). The case was filed in the federal district court in the Western District of Missouri (Case No. 08-0531-cv).
To date, there have been ten other responses to the Petitions for Redress:
Last week we also requested your feedback and ideas regarding our effort to evaluate and select plaintiffs for the upcoming series of Right-to-Petition "Circuit Court" lawsuits. We thank the many people who provided feedback. We are currently analyzing your comments and will provide additional information in the near future in a web update.
Last week, Plan supporter Ray Mills had the opportunity to personally speak to Ron Paul in Boone, NC at a Ron Paul rally and book signing event. Ray was able to question Ron Paul regarding the Petitions and his intention to respond. Rep. Paul stated he knew nothing about the service of the Petitions for Redress and that he would look into the matter.
Last Friday (July 25), Bob Schulz spoke by phone with Ron’s chief of staff, Tom Lizardo, about the Petitions for Redress. Tom said he was generally aware of the Petitions but would have to check with his Legislative staff to see what was being done about them. Tom did express a concern of his. He asked if Bob believed the Right to Petition required Ron Paul to respond to every communication received by him from any constituent. Bob told Tom he did not believe each and every communication would necessarily receive the protection of the First Amendment as a proper Petition for Redress requiring a response. Bob then sent Tom a definition of a proper Petition for Redress – one that would require a response.
Needless to say, a serious situation would ensue should Ron Paul fail to respond, responsively (i.e., with formal, specific answers to the questions in the Petitions for Redress). Absent such a response Ron Paul’s credibility as an adherent of the Constitution could quickly be called into question.
Ironically, should Ron Paul fail to Respond to the Petitions, he would in effect, not only be ignoring the affirmative duty expressly placed upon him by the last ten words of the First Amendment, he would (through his "Campaign for Liberty") be left promoting the notion of majority rule as the sole avenue of recourse by which the People can (peacefully) cure constitutional torts or secure their individual Rights.
More details about this will be released soon….